When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

Part 3 of 3: The White Way

The reality is that the American and European domination of the world has taught most of us to think in one similar way; their own way. Heralding their perceived superiority, they have infiltrated existing local societal systems all across the world and condemned any other way apart from their own. At their own folly and perhaps our own, their belief in the infallibility of democracy and a legal framework in the form of the constitution have condemned all other forms of societal structures.

Hindu laws, Hudud Laws, the customs and practices of certain African tribes, native Indians the ideology of the Chinese and Japanese, communism, facism and socialism have all fell victim under the scrutiny of the western judgement. Numerous literature and documentaries in western media have described in great detail the flaws of these ‘brutal’, ‘primitive’, ‘barbaric’ and unfair and inhumane cultures. These exposés are widely circulated portraying these cultures, ideologies and concepts in a negative light compared to western thought.

The arrogance that reeks from western ethnocentricity perhaps justifiably stems from their greatest strengths; their ability to organize and structure, to impose and convince and finally faith and utmost confidence in their own ability. With a strong sense of self-belief in their methods, their overwhelming faith in their laws, cultures and beliefs compelled them to convince all others, that their ways were superior. Their ability to structure and organize all their thoughts served as a testament to their superiority. And finally when they imposed, most often than not, they succeeded.

Unfortunately, where lay the strengths that I have described in western cultures, therein lay the weaknesses of the non-western cultures. Their lack in structure, authority and self-belief allowed them to succumb to the imposing nature of western cultures.

I have no personal agenda against democracy, western culture or Christianity. Democracy may not be flawless, but perhaps it represents the most widely acceptable political structure we have now. Western culture has introduced many good values to the rest of the world too; speaking out against injustice and liberating those who have been discriminated. Christianity has brought hope and faith to many who in their darkest days were left floundering. Western colonisation of the world has indeed its benefits. But indeed it made the world sway to its tune; and if any is to stray from it, it would be near impossible to escape the prejudice and judgement from all else.

We are decades into the post-colonialism era. But why are we still judged based on western standards? Worse still, not only by the westerners, but by ourselves too.

Values like chastity are forsaken in the name of liberation. Traditional masculine and feminine roles are increasingly challenged by feminism, blurring the divide between male and female; unfortunately portraying the modern women as one not limited by culture or traditions and ultimately less feminine. Duties, responsibilities and roles are forgotten as western youth revolutions challenge the traditional eastern parent-child relationships. Sacred ties and relationships such as marriages now are no more than legislative and civil partnership that last only whilst it works. Prayer and devotion are met with scepticism and western scientific hypotheses, theories and statistics are increasingly used to explain the ways of the world.

Perhaps there is no right or wrong. But this discourse is not about which is right or better, eastern cultures versus western cultures. It merely is about remembering who we are and why we are, instead of aspiring to be someone else we are not.

Cultures and traditions evolve with time, and I am not naïve or ignorant to that. We cannot expect to still live by the traditions of our predecessors from the Vedic era. But nothing should stop us from holding onto the good and positive principles of these cultures and traditions that define us. The evolution of cultures and traditions is not about forgetting older practices, but instead is about learning from other cultures and ingraining their positives into our own lifestyle whilst accepting the technology and modernisation of the world. Unfortunately, the converse is the reality. We see more people adopting this modern foreign culture and trying to implement an eastern flavour to this. At risk of hypocrisy, I admit that even I may perhaps be guilty of this.

So hence the paradox within my discourse; will globalisation blur the lines that divide us culturally until we accept an increasingly popular western culture, or will the remaining few who have resisted westernisation so far continue to resist this new hybrid culture and allow the clashing of cultures to continue?

I warmly embrace globalisation, as the bringing together of people, I believe, helps you understand other cultures, allowing you to dispel myths, prejudices and stereotypes. Or even if it confirms them, it at least affords one the chance of experiencing a different culture and learning how to respect and live with it. However, I for one am not ready to discard religious teachings and traditions that have been passed onto me for centuries, for these are the very things that have defined who I am and provide an explanation to my identity.

Perhaps the world would be a more peaceful place if we all discarded our respective culture and religion and adopted a hybrid one. But I suppose I still would prefer a little more flavour and colour that the various cultures, religion and traditions bring to the world, even if it means a little more drama.

The Voice of Malaysia: A loud whisper

Part II: Malaysian Indian loyalists and a conclusion

I now extend my discussion into the relevance of the elections to minority of the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia: the Malaysian Indians. Consisting of ‘only’ 8% of the Malaysian population, this ethnic minority group have previously largely been discarded as politically insignificant. But recent events have dismissed such claims.

Loyalists to the former ruling coalition, Malaysian Indians have always retained hopeful faith in the governing body and the former ruling coalition could almost certainly rest assured that by large they secured the Malaysian Indian votes. However, this loyalty was taken granted for; and so often in the past has been perceived as passivity or even viewed by some as incapacity.

But the recent handling of a number of issues that remain close to the hearts of the majority of Malaysian Indians provoked an overwhelming emotive response that unearthed dissatisfaction and distrust towards the former administrative body. When their loyalty was met with betrayal involving matters closest to their hearts, a strong sense of injustice swept the Malaysian Indian community. As Malaysian Indians largely felt that their plight went unheeded and their voices muted; in perhaps the largest ever show of unity amongst the Malaysian Indians, they made a bold statement by doing the unimaginable, voting in the opposite direction.

But soon afterwards realising that they now faced the possibility that there may not be any Malaysian Indian holding office in the cabinet, there was a lingering doubt amongst Malaysian Indian voters’ post-elections whether they shot themselves in the foot by voting against the former regime, which at least guaranteed representation of Malaysian Indians in the governing body’s highest administrative task force.

The presence of Malaysian Indian representation within the cabinet was important to them, because it served as an assurance that there will be a voice from the Malaysian Indian population to the cabinet and vice-versa; that these representatives will moderate the decisions and policies formed by the cabinet, taking in consideration their views and interests which otherwise might pass over.

But history has taught us otherwise and more importantly not to repeat our folly. I only need to point the Malaysian Indians towards their increasing political and socio-economic marginalisation to help them realise that apart from ethnicity, these ‘representatives’ only served as an illusion of representation. These representatives who have time and again claimed that they will champion the cause of Malaysian Indians have undeniable failed; not only in terms of addressing the marginalisation of Malaysian Indians, but also in their respective portfolios, thus ultimately failing all Malaysians.

The lack of dedicated leaders who possesses integrity, moral principles and key leadership skills amongst the Malaysian Indian ranks is not surprising given the conservatism and traditionalist mindset of this population. Refraining from commenting on the individual make-up of our administrative body, I fail to see any Malaysian Indian in this point in time, who is truly capable as a leader for not only for the Malaysian Indians, but for a the multi-ethnic population of Malaysia.

Most definitely there will be quarters that disagree, pointing out the fact that there are many successful Malaysian Indians that surely are capable. To refute such claims, I merely have to ask of simplest questions, “Who?” I have no doubts that there are many Malaysian Indians who have achieved remarkable success in their respective fields, to the extent they command huge respect from the masses, and their achievements will remain as a yardstick against all aspiring Malaysian Indians who enter the field, will be measured against. In areas such as medicine, business, law and education, there is an undeniable pool of talent amongst Malaysian Indians. However, the majority of them are pure academics with little else to offer apart from the expertise in their respective fields and therefore, they will continue to ‘serve’ and not ‘lead’.

I have always believed that academic achievement alone is not a sensitive measure of intelligence or ability. If only such academic talent were combined with charisma, dynamism, a sense of duty towards society, management skills, principles and integrity, then perhaps the Malaysian Indians may have a capable leader. So although there are numerous Malaysian Indian academicians who have been earmarked as potential candidates for leadership, I fear this potential will remain untapped and the Malaysian Indian population will fail to have a true leader that they can look up to, and they will remain largely remain a ‘serving class’.

In light of that view, I firmly believe that the cause, interest and views of Malaysian Indians will be better represented by a capable Malaysian non-Indian leader, compared to an incapable Malaysian Indian leader. If the Malaysian Indians can see past the racial barrier, they too will see the importance of a good leader regardless of ethnicity, enabling them to aspire for greater heights which would be impossible under incompetent leadership.

However, indelible mistakes have been made in the past by previous leaders purely stemming from their cultural sensitivity towards the various ethnic groups. A good leader can only address the needs and concerns of a population if he/she can first understand their nature, more so with Malaysian Indians who are conservative and traditionalist. Merely taking a stand and implementing policies with disregard to race, culture and religion is not plausible mainly for two reasons:- 1) the multiethnic population of Malaysia still remains close to her roots, and 2) prolonged subjugation of the population under racial politics has heightened racial tensions and persecutory feelings amongst ethnic groups.

Therefore, all leaders should attempt to be accustomed or if not, at least be sensitive towards the cultural and historical aspects associated with the all major and minor, ethnic and religious groups. Lest they fail, I fear that the ethnic groups will continue to grow unnecessarily suspicious and racial tensions will only worsen, sending the society back to a time where people only thought that only ‘our kind’ will every truly understand ‘our needs and concerns’.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has named four Malaysian Indians in his cabinet, which should at least alleviate some of the concerns of the Malaysian Indians; temporarily at least. Given the poor performance of MIC and Gerakan within the Barisan Nasional in the elections, these appointments signify diplomacy within the coalition and perhaps the greatest testament to Barisan Nasional power-sharing concept. I certainly hope that these appointees will embrace the huge responsibility trusted onto them and quickly realise that their duty lies not solely to the Malaysian Indian population but to all Malaysians alike, and serve the Malaysian people by leading by example, instead of being preoccupied with racial politics as their predecessors were. I commend their appointments (although not necessarily in agreement), as it has given them a chance to step out of the shadows of previous premierships, and hope they will be able to re-educate their peers and help them achieve political maturity from within the party. More importantly, they also need to convey these messages across to the people that actually matter – the public of Malaysia.

The results of the election have been described by many as a political tsunami. Whilst I acknowledge the momentous outcome of the elections in terms of history and evolution of Malaysian politics, its impact and the consequences that follow, I dare not go as far as to describing it as a tsunami. This is purely because more crucially it is this next five years which will truly paint a more accurate picture of the effects of the outcome of the elections. This is a test for both Barisan Nasional and Barisan Rakyat.

Will Barisan Nasional change their tried and tested methods which have they have relied on for decades, to meet the changing needs of the people that are gradually rejecting Barisan Nasional’s ideologies; or will they persevere and continue employing detrimental racial politics under the guise of power-sharing to ensure racial harmony.

Can Barisan Rakyat deliver the changes that they promised to bring to the people, and perhaps more importantly can three parties with vastly divergent view points and a host of inexperienced staff settle on a level platform which will allow the formation of an effective people’s government?

A slip from Barisan Nasional if they choose to remain stubborn will result in a true political tsunami in the next general election and we may perhaps see a new government consisting of the current opposition. However, on equally dangerous footing, a slip from the Barisan Rakyat if they fail to live up to the high standards they preached pre-elections will leave voters utterly frustrated – prompting voters to revert back to the safer option. Expect to then see a landslide victory for Barisan Nasional leaving Barisan Rakyat to rue on the glorious chance that they failed to capitalise on; a chance that may not come by for a long time.

Therefore in my opinion, I believe it will be the next general elections that will tell us who truly emerged victorious in the 2008 Malaysian general elections.


(Disclaimer: This essay purely conveys my reactions, thoughts and opinions on the outcome of the recent elections as an impartial individual with no political affiliation. The focused discussion on the Malaysian Indian population is an attempt to calm their fears and reassure them that they remain relevant to the Malaysian society if they can accept their limitations and bridge the gap between racial barriers. I also believe that my arguments are not exclusive to just the Malaysian Indians but are relevant across all ethnic groups if Malaysia intends to truly achieve the racial equality and harmony she craves for.)

The Voice of Malaysia: A loud whisper

Part I of II: The evolution of public will

As the wave of initial euphoria of the recent elections passes on, I believe many are left with a residual feeling of doubt and guilt, as the people of Malaysia who finally have managed to muster enough courage to push for a change now stand on very unfamiliar territory.

Whilst Barisan Nasional will work arduously to dissect the cause of their defeat in post-mortem, unless they dig really deep, they will fail to see that the ethnic groups in Malaysia are finally ready to break racial barriers. Likewise Barisan Rakyat too faces a stiff challenge in working around the stark differences around individual party policies to form a coalition that serves the public that voted for them.

I personally am in disbelief at the results of the elections, a clear testament to how I had underestimated the public masses of Malaysia.

Racial politics has been the bread and butter of Malaysian politics since pre-independent Malaya, and the power-sharing policy of Barisan Nasional to ensure representation of each ethnic group in the government has been their magnet to secure the support of the public. This policy served Malaysia and the public sufficiently in early post-independence, when racial barriers set up by the British as part of their cleverly schemed divide-and-rule policy were impregnable; a time when people believed that their interest could only be conveyed and represented to others, by someone belonging to their own respective ethnicity.

But times have changed. Globalisation and perhaps to an extent overpopulation has brought us all much closer to not only our neighbours, but also to the rest of the world. And in many ways, too close for comfort for a proportion of the population who have failed to embrace this phenomenon. Ethnic and cultural divides are now even less well defined than the borders or even the laws of the land and surely ethnic and cultural barriers are slowly fading. We must accept that the longer we continue to dwell on our differences, the longer and harder it will take to accept the inevitable change. Instead we should choose to focus on the similarities we share and cherish our differences that are unique to us as a precious keepsake.

But unfortunately in the multiethnic Malaysia, a handful of our politicians have tactlessly continued to employ racial politics to remind us of our differences to reinstall these barriers; in what I can only perceive as a hapless attempt for personal political gain at the cost of suppressing the natural evolution of social development of the Malaysian public. Consequently, in the last decade, racial tensions appeared only to be escalating, and it seemed that the racial harmony within the multiethnic society that Malaysia paraded internationally only served as masquerade; a mask underneath which racial tensions were carefully concealed threatening to erupt at any time, a façade or perhaps even better described as the conspiracy of silence of the Malaysian public.

The numerous rallies before the elections were early symptoms of a depressed society, that our executive committee failed to diagnose and address adequately. Furthermore, the situation was not helped by leading authorities, who failed to attend to the needs of these groups sensitively. On numerous occasions, their claims were often dismissed as trivial or worse still went unheeded purely because it was deemed that they were those belonging of the minority.

It is inevitable that the administrative body in a democratic organization will lean towards meeting and satisfying the needs of the majority. It most basic terms, majority rule is amongst the core principles of the governance of a democracy which often can result in the tyranny of the majority; where in the interest of the majority, the interest of the minority can be overlooked and disregarded.

Rousseau wrote in the ‘Discourse on Political Economy’, that a popular government has at its object the good of the people and follows the general will (majority) of the public. However, he immediately recognized that the decree of the general will, will inevitably impinge on the individual rights of the public; majority or minority regardless and hence acknowledged the necessity of a uniform set of laws that apply equally to each individual according to the general will and a good leader who is able to govern according to the public will, without completely overlooking the rights of the minority population.

But above it all, Rousseau underlined with utmost importance that the government should not directly control these laws but instead be adherent to these laws that are administered by legislators, and this lawful government should be lead by a leader who is not blinded by ambition, but one who has integrity and adheres to the principles of moral values. Only then can a leader run the government according to the general will of the public, whilst ensuring that the rights of the minority remain protected – “…let their country therefore be a common mother to all the citizens; let the advantages which they enjoy there make them cherish it; let the government allow them a share in public administration sufficient to make them feel that they are in their home county, and let the laws, in their eyes, be nothing less than the guarantee of liberty for all..” (Rousseau)

The election results are reflective of the paradigm shift of the public will. The only question that remains is whether Malaysia has a leader within her ranks who possesses the integrity and principles that are guided by moral values that will allow him/her to form a popular government that appeases both the majority and the minority.